Power and Bulk

Look, I'm not going to lie. There's a guy in here, "Lockout", that makes this one of the least productive and most boring places to talk training on the internet, and no one can be bothered to ban him. Buyer beware. Arguments about minutiae. Ad hominems. Appeals to authority. Training #1.

But the most important component of volume is intensity. Even hit proponents strive to increase volume -- they do so through additional weight. Adding sets for the sake of increasing volume is more likely to make things worse, not better. For a given task only so much "volume" is necessary and anything beyond that will result in useless endurance (for the given task). What were those Prilepin charts all about?

"whenever any animal's behavior puts it out of touch with the realities of its existence, it becomes extinct". ---- Michael Crichton

That is a very interesting topic. If I remember correctly Greg Nuckols basically argues (or rather what he gathers from research and personal experience) that more of the appropriate thing (lifting heavy to lift heavy) makes you better at that thing. Limiting factors are recovery and training time available. Of course, at some point dimishing returns set in and e.g. doing a front squat might benefit you more than another set of squats. And long term planing might make periods of other stuff necessary to prevent injury and/or improve other qualities.

Not exactly controversial statements.

The point was that adding volume tends to build muscle (to a degree) and muscle is the primary component in moving stuff. Also, volume is the easiest variable to change alot. You cannot move twice the weight in a short period of time but you can certainly double your sets to force adaption. The Bulgarian Manual actually argues asa potential upside and downside of a daily-max type of training that

a) People get a lot more practice in with heavy lifts (which is good - at least in the short term)b) It does not allow for/incorporates a lot of bodybuilding type of volume training ( which is bad - at least in the long term)

I like Nuckols stuff. He really makes a effort to think stuff through and is willing to change his advice based upon new evidence.

Lifting stuff does not necessarily make you knowledgeable about lifting stuff. You can do stupid shit for a long time and not make any progress.

Paul Anderson thought a lot about his training. Bob Peoples as well. So did Doug Hepburn. Even Hackenschmidt and Saxon spent a good amount of time analysing their training. That was very nice of them because we could expand our knowledge based upon their experiences and experiments.

Are you more old-school than them? Would you like to argue that being old is somehow making you good at this without any thought? Is being younger that 50 somehow a disadvantage? Neither Omar nor Nuckols are exactly new to the iron.

Einstein was 26 when he published is most famous works. You can be young and you can be old. Neither means you know shit if you don't put any effort into it.

I get annoyed when people getted bogged down discussing minutia like "should I do 3 sets of 10 or 4 sets of 8?" or "how do I better isolate my lateral tricep head?" but the big questions like the importance of training volume interest me. And I'm amazed that questions like that still don't seem to have a clear answer.

From my point of view it's intensity first, volume second. First you have to lift with enough intensity to create a stimulus for size/strength, then you can do more of it for a bigger stimulus. I would rather see a kid who's trying to get bigger/stronger do one tough set with a challenging weight than 10 sets with baby weights. But if he's training heavy enough I suppose working up to more volume is even better.

Probably like 250lbs. Carrying that big head around all day must have some crossover. Also, he had access to Bratwurst and Hefeweizen which are highly anabolic substances.

I am in agreement with you (and so would be Nuckols and Omar and pretty much every sport scientist). There seems to be a intensity cut-off for progress and Mike Israetel says it seems to be around 60% of the 1RM of an exercise for muscle gain. This is confirmed by most practical experience. Plenty of people report how they started to progress once they focused on the weight and not on more sets. I assume this is for two reasons:

1) They simply did not hit the muscle hard enough.2) They wasted a lot of calories on the gym equivalent of screwing around and lacked the energy to build muscle.

There is a interesting study that Greg Nuckols quoted where people where hitting various number of sets to failure at 80% of their max. One hard set gave you most of the benefits, two hard sets were better, three a little more and so on. Not really surprising. The funny part for me was that the added benefit for extra sets continued to be measurable to somewhere around 12-15 sets per exercise per week. I think they did squats, I don't recall. You could essentially run people into the ground with training and they showed more and more adaptation. But I think it is reasonable to say that if you don't feed them enough or give them enough rest then adaptation can not take place. And for many trainees the aspects of adequate food and rest are not fulfilled. Many people sleep way too little and don't eat enough to support their training. Reducing the "fluff" and hitting a few heavy basics will allow them to progress as it reduces overall stress and caloric need. Maybe not optimally but optimally is not going to happen if you have a stressful life and just want to do this as a hobby. Nowadays I would rather spent another hour cooking than more time in the gym.

Of course, there are other questions. Maybe a shitload of heavy volume is great to get strong/big but not very healthy in the long term. Maybe 50% of that volume will get you 90% of the way and save your joints or whatever. All that stuff is complicated if you want to optimize it.

Einstein was most likely stronger than his peers, because he was very much interested in "force and mass"

I try not to go overboard with the science stuff, but it still interests me and IMO, certain guidelines have come along, that cannot be overlooked. Volume is certainly one of a few points to ponder. If one looks at say Prilipen's chart, more volume on less intense/loads, seems to have merit for nearly everyone.

I only started to read some of Nuckols et al. stuff, so I am not boned up on all his points. And sure, most weekend warriors/arm chair lifters will benefit staying very simple and very basic, mixing enough volume, frequency and intensity, still doing the compound lifts more or less exclusively. I'm with Pierre. For every squat, dead, row or OHP question, there are 20 bi and tri iso set rep questions, that give the science of training topics a bad name.

What if doing the Hokey Pokey and then turning yourself around, is really what it's all about???

There seems to be a intensity cut-off for progress and Mike Israetel says it seems to be around 60% of the 1RM of an exercise for muscle gain.

I think that's the tricky part - figuring out the cut off point. Ivan Abadjiev believed that the more advanced you are, the higher % of 1RM you need to progress. A newbie can progress with the empty bar, while an elite lifter needs to train close to 1RM to stimulate a gain. Hence his daily max program for the Bulgarian national team.

I think that definition works fine for weightlifting, but for BBers and PLers who do more reps it gets a little more complicated imo. The intensity cut off for gains might be some combination of % 1RM and effort. Example... I can lift 70% for 5 lazy triples and it won't do anything for me, or I can do the same sets & reps with max speed & effort for a great fast twitch fiber workout, or I can lift 70% for 1 hard set of 15 reps including rest pauses and feel trashed and sore the next day. Same weight & volume, but 3 different training effects. I think that's where most of the gray area lies... most serious lifters have the sense to train with 60% or heavier, but opinions vary on pushing each set really hard vs. leaving some in the tank and doing more sets. The quote that started the thread seems to suggest that more sets is the better approach, but I think that only works if you've crossed the effort threshold on each set. And can recover from the additional sets as FMJ pointed out.

PierreSuter wrote: Example... I can lift 70% for 5 lazy triples and it won't do anything for me, or I can do the same sets & reps with max speed & effort for a great fast twitch fiber workout, or I can lift 70% for 1 hard set of 15 reps including rest pauses and feel trashed and sore the next day. Same weight & volume, but 3 different training effects. I think that's where most of the gray area lies... most serious lifters have the sense to train with 60% or heavier, but opinions vary on pushing each set really hard vs. leaving some in the tank and doing more sets.

I think this was one of Dr Ken's arguments in a way. He could keep the volume down but still knock himself out with 1 set of 15-20, with a safe enough weight as to not get hurt. Also, as you said about rep speed, or force I will say here. I can pull light weights (say 60%-70%) all day, but if I pull them as fast as I can, I get burnt faster, just from applying force and speed. If I do middle ground, say 80% but normal speed, I usually prospered from the higher volume. 5x5, 8x3, 12x2, so staying in that range of around 25-30 total reps. I have to have some kind of volume if intensity or loads are less than say 85%+.

What if doing the Hokey Pokey and then turning yourself around, is really what it's all about???